Discussion between Sklivvz and Articuno

5:48 PM

28

Q: Has anyone ever spoken in a language they did not know?

It has often been said that people can speak in languages that were not formerly known to them. Arguably the most often recited example of this is in the context of demonic possession. For example those supposedly possessed by malevolent spirits apparently can and regularly do speak in languages ...

user35386

@rob The question doesn't ask about demonic possession. It asks if xenoglossia has happened, thereby satisfying the "criteria" of "so called" demonic possessions". All Brian is saying is that xenoglossia is a criteria that some people use to detect demonic possessions, but isn't asking us to examine the latter.

Sklivvz

This should be rephrased or it will never have an answer. There is no claim that there are no people speaking in tongues: it's merely a null hypothesis (lacking proof no one can claim xenoglossia). There are no invisible pink unicorns in my garage either (prove it!) ;-). It's up to the OP to bring a specific example of someone claiming specific examples we can debunk or confirm. Closing until such an example is given.

user35386

@Sklivvz Doesn't the question only have to identify a notable claim? Ie. Do people believe that people have spoken in a language that they did not know? That is the test for notability. It does not require that the asker present a specific instance of such a person that people hold this belief about.

user35386

@Sklivvz If you want to close questions that are unfalsifiable, that is a separate close reason that we could add via a meta discussion. I would support that, but until then, we can't use off-topic/non-notable as a substitute.

Sklivvz

@Articuno there are very few specific claims of xenoglossia (look on Wikipedia for a list). Asking if any of them is real is ok. Asking if there are any other cases is not a question about a claim. In general, I can't decide which Brian meant: this is a relatively old question. The question is not closed as unfalsifiable, but as not containing a claim (a null hypothesis is not a claim).

user35386

5:48 PM

The claim is "[some] people can speak in languages that were not formerly known to them". That is a claim, and it is notable. There exist many people that believe it is true.

Sklivvz

@Articuno ok, then that claim is unclear. who is claimed to be able to speak in languages?

user35386

@Sklivvz The claim is that "there exist people that can do X". In the question "Are yowies real", we don't demand that the asker tells us "what thing is claimed to be a yowie". For skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/3327/do-evil-twins-exist, we don't demand "who is claimed to be an evil twin". For skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/788/do-ghosts-exist, we don't demand "what is claimed to be a ghost".

user35386

The claim "some people can speak in languages that were not formerly known to them" is very clear. Just because you don't understand it isn't a reason to close the question.

Sklivvz

@Articuno right: look at the answers. They are not very good, in fact, they are crap. Why? Because the questions are clearly badly posed. They are ancient questions, the same questions would certainly not fly today.

user35386

Okay. So, we no longer accept "there exist X" claims? We now require claims to be claims to be more like "Y is an X"?

Sklivvz

5:49 PM

Come on, let's be reasonable

"there exist X" is fine as long as it's a testable hypothesis

the problem is that we can't really answer "no because it's a null claim and there is no proof otherwise" every time.

user35386

No "there exist X" claims are falsifiable, though.

user35386

Why do you get to pick which ones are okay and which ones are not okay

user35386

As far as I can tell, there was no community backlash against that question about speaking in tongues

user35386

I'm happy with a stricter standard for these claims though

user35386

See my meta question.

Sklivvz

5:56 PM

It's been there for ages, with tons of deleted answers, etc. it's a broken window

user35386

It's not a broken window if the bad answers are deleted.

user35386

Okay, so the standard is after we see a bunch of bad answers, a question can be closed?

user35386

We could make that a separate close reason

user35386

but let's not conflate the "no notable claim" close reason with that

Sklivvz

the problem is that it's answerable only in one direction

user35386

5:57 PM

so are a bunch of other "there exist X" questions

Sklivvz

are they answerable in one direction or two?

user35386

one direction.

user35386

you can't falsify a "there exist X" question

Sklivvz

you can if it's specific

user35386

ghosts, yowies, aliens visiting earth

user35386

5:58 PM

I agree, if it's "Y is an X" claim, then it's falsifiable

Sklivvz

is this a picture of a ghost? examine the evidence, give an answer

user35386

Yes

user35386

That's different. So, we could set the standard that questions must ask "is Y an X?" rather than "Does there exist an X"

user35386

and the close reason should not be "no notable claim"

user35386

it could be "too broad"

user35386

5:59 PM

because attempting to falsify a "there exists X" claim is too broad

Sklivvz

it could also be "unclear of what you are asking"

user35386

it's pretty clear what they're asking to me

Sklivvz

well, yes and no. we need more specific details to be able to answer

user35386

right, that doesn't make the question unclear

user35386

but, i think we're in agreement... just not about what close reason to use

Sklivvz

6:04 PM

Do you have a few more examples of questions that would be close-worthy?

user35386

i think it's important to pick the right close reason, though, because certain close reasons (especially the no-notable claim one) have picked up a long history of discussion and interpretation, and I think using it fairly strictly is important to keep it's meaning clear

user35386

@Sklivvz Let me see..

user35386

meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/2360/5582

user35386

3

Q: Are yowies real?

According to several articles, yowies (i.e. wild, unidentified, hominids, reputed to live in Australia) have been allegedly observed by many. For example, in this Herald Sun article about a man in Canberra: , it is stated "The creature, according to James, was a juvenile covered in hair, with l...

animals australia cryptozoology

user35386

2

Q: Did dragons exist?

Dragons have been common to many cultures and mythologies. Some famous are St. George slaying a dragon and Chinese dragons, such as the symbol used for the Emperor of China. Creationists and Bible literalists do assert that dragons existed and that they are basically special dinosaurs. Drago...

animals cryptozoology paleontology

user35386

6:08 PM

15

Q: Do Wiccan energy balls exist?

I have friends who are Wiccans. I've always been a skeptic. Besides crystals, orbs, spells, potions and other things, they have what they call "energy balls". Here's how they build that "energy"1: they rub their hands together "to open the chakras"2, they spread their hands to about 1 meter app...

physics religion

user35386

Although the difficulty is that determining whether "Do X exist" questions are answerable depends on a presumption of the answer. For example, see skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8847/did-dinosaurs-exist. Because dinosaurs did exist, the question is answerable. If they didn't exist, the question would not be answerable.

user35386

However, we could certainly answer "Is this fossil the fossil of a dinosaur?"

user35386

So, your proposed standard would not break the dinosaur question... the asker could easily point to a specific fossil and ask if it's a dinosaur fossil.

Brian M. Hunt

Pardon the intrusion, and I may be completely confused, but how do questions skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1624 – Is there any verifiable historical and/or scientific evidence that Jesus lived and skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/4498 - Does torture work well as an interrogation technique? fit into the analysis? The core inquiry for these questions seems to be "is there any evidence of ...", the other type of question being "is X evidence of Y".

user35386

6:27 PM

Good question. I think they could be saved. The Jesus question is asking about a specific individual, and the question "does X exists", where X is "evidence" is implicit in every question that we have.

user35386

How do you see the torture question being affected by this standard we're discussing? I don't think I see how it is implicated.

Sklivvz

6:39 PM

@Articuno this could be saved because it has a specific instance

user35386

@Sklivvz You're right. I didn't notice that. I would reword the title to "Is this a yowie", though. But, title's don't matter that much.

Sklivvz

@Articuno it needs salvaging, it's not clear and the answer is generic

@BrianM.Hunt I don't think that either fits the bill, both are specific claims that can be proven true or false via experiment or historical analysis

@Articuno this is a bad question, should probably be locked

Brian M. Hunt

@Articuno One take on the torture question is that it is asking whether there is evidence that torture works. i.e. It is asking a general question - not one related to a specific instance.

Sklivvz

@Articuno that one, burn with fire: see the original revision -> skeptics.stackexchange.com/revisions/9091/1

Brian M. Hunt

@Sklivvz Xenoglossia is no less provable than Jesus. :)

Sklivvz

6:50 PM

why would you say that?

there's historical evidence of jesus (good or bad it's another matter)

user35386

@Sklivvz We shouldn't include information available in the answer as part of how we assess the question, though.

user35386

(replying to "there's historical evidence of jesus...")

Brian M. Hunt

@Sklivvz There may be as much evidence of xenoglossia – we just do not know yet. It is however a rather popular claim.

Sklivvz

ok, let me rephrase that: jesus is a known historical figure

Brian M. Hunt

@Sklivvz Xenoglossia is a known phenomenon. It might not be as popular as Jesus, but this is not a popularity contest. :)

Sklivvz

6:52 PM

(thinking)

it seems to me that it's too broad and generic

Brian M. Hunt

What is too broad and generic?

Sklivvz

xenoglossia

user35386

@Sklivvz You would like a video, recording, or testimony of somebody experiencing Xenoglossia and the question to ask "did this person in this video/recording/account speak in a language that they did not previously know"?

Brian M. Hunt

Sorry, in what respects is it too broad and generic? Is the claim that it has happened to broad and generic? Or that it is a phenomenon?

(as opposed to a specific event)

The phenomenon itself is quite specific, of course, being narrowly defined.

Sklivvz

the claim that it happened somewhere, sometime is generic

clearly no one can address that

claims about jesus are fairly specific (born around year zero, in palestine, died on a cross, etc.)

Brian M. Hunt

6:56 PM

Got it. Well ... there are lots of specific claims, including the bible (at Pentecost) and others more recently.

There are a list of cases, here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenoglossy

Sklivvz

i think we are conflating xenoglossia with speaking in tongues here

user35386

@Sklivvz Well, not "clearly"; it's only clear that nobody can address it because of the presumption that the claim is false.

Sklivvz

it's a russell teapot

"yeah this one is not a real case, but there could be a real one elsewhere, keep looking!"

Brian M. Hunt

There are no lack of claims that this phenomenon has happened.

user35386

how is this a russell teapot? the speaking in tongues claim is not that there would be no observable evidence even if it was true.

Brian M. Hunt

6:58 PM

Just a single example would put the claim to rest.

user35386

"yeah this one is not a real case, but there could be a real one elsewhere, keep looking" - that's a black swan case.

Sklivvz

There are no believable claims afaik, or maybe there are - discussing those is fine

user35386

not a russell teapot claim

Sklivvz

to me there's a difference between believing in something specific and believing there's something in general

i have a stackexchange meeting, back in 60m

Brian M. Hunt

It seems as though the standard for a Skeptics.SE question is a bit of a moving goalpost. :) That said, @Articuno do you think the question would be stronger if there were references to specific cases e.g. those in the wikipedia article?

I still have trouble distinguishing between xenoglossia and Jesus. :)

Sklivvz

7:01 PM

@BrianM.Hunt absolutely

Brian M. Hunt

Let me put in some references to shore it up.

(but may take a bit)

user35386

@BrianM.Hunt about moving goalpost, I agree. I was also surprised at the higher standard and started a meta discussion to make the change explicit (if it is even in fact a change).

user35386

I also agree that asking whether specific instances are examples of xenoglossia or speaking in tongues meets the higher standard.

Brian M. Hunt

Thanks @Articuno - btw, do you have a link to the meta discussion?

user35386

0

Q: "There exist X" claims

Based on the discussion here: Has anyone ever spoken in a language they did not know? It seems we no longer accept questions of the form "People believe that X exist. Do X exist?" Instead, if you're interested in the existence of X, the question should present a specific instance Y that is clai...

discussion

Sklivvz

7:06 PM

I've pinged the other mods for their input

Brian M. Hunt

Thanks @Sklivvz. I fear the distinguishing feature between questions that "pass" and those that "fail" the test is the highly subjective perceived popularity or familiarity of the topic to the moderators.

user35386

Thanks @Sklivvz!

Brian M. Hunt

That may not be the case - but it is a concern.

Sklivvz

@BrianM.Hunt yep, on the other hand there is a class of questions we can't really answer permanently. we shouldn't allow those

user35386

My concern is that we will base our decisions based on the presumption of the existence of a confirming example (or lack thereof).

user35386

7:09 PM

I think whatever standard we pick should be ignorant as to whether the existence of the X is in fact true or false.

Brian M. Hunt

@Articuno - I agree. @Sklivvz my understanding was that notability weeded out those other questions - being an objective standard, fairly easy to verify, and not subject to the perceptions of the moderators.

user35386

As a completely different solution to the problem of non-falsifiability, could we have a notice that could be added to questions like this: "This question is asking about whether something exists. While a single instance would be enough to prove its existence, there is no way to prove non-existence. We leave this question open in the case that an example is found."

Sklivvz

^ Cringe :-)

user35386

haha. okay

Brian M. Hunt

8:25 PM

I like @Articuno's idea.

I'm not sure putting a question on hold is the right idea ... what if someone comes along who does have the example? That said, I agree that questions like "Do UFO's exist" are a great example where a useful example would not be forthcoming. I think Xenoglossia is probably somewhere between Jesus and UFOs. :)

But I'm not sure what the distinguishing feature is - or whether we as humans can necessarily make the distinction in a fair, objective and consistent manner.

Sklivvz

the distinguishing feature is that in one case we have specific events to analyze, and thus, a criteria for both failing and passing the test. in the case of xenoglossia there is no valid test to prove it doesn't exist

it's a general question but it can't be answered generally

to me, this is an objective quality of the question

user35386

10:02 PM

"there is no valid test to prove it doesn't exist it's a general question but it can't be answered generally" - but that is only a problem if you presume it does not exist.

Sklivvz

10:24 PM

no, it's a problem anyways

since you don't know whether it exists, it must be equally provable or disprovable

i think that's the crux of the problem.

in my opinion:
- do we want to address notable claims about the existence of things? YES
- do we want to address only answerable questions? YES
- do we want questions which will never have no answer? NO

so that means we need to find a way of modifying such answers so they are actually answerable with something different from "null hypothesis, bla, bla". We want to answer, "hell no, ghosts don't exist!".

the skeptical answer to those questions is clearly NO, but the format of the question prevents an answer. so there's something wrong there.

Don't know if it's related but I've just closed another unanswerable question

1

Q: Is it possible to do astral travel?

Psychic-Medium Kimbery Bunch claims in a video meditation can help you to astral travel, remote view or to have bilocation abilities. This Video claims that she can "astral travel" spiritually come out of the body see her own body from outside, "remote view" She can "spiritually" see exactly wha...

esp psychics meditation

Regarding the xenoglossia question: if the claim is "has anyone spoken in a language they did not know", then it seems to me that the claim is unfair: it's like asking "has anyone ever received presents from father christmas", how can you disprove it?

The point is that we can't disprove all the lies at once. Take this: it's likely a fake. It would take time but it's likely we can debunk it.

There are very many cases like that. We'd need to find evidence against all of them singularly

And even then, we couldn't answer negatively because of the no true scotsman problem ("they lied, sure, but the real cases are not reported").

the "jesus" question is equivalent to the IISIS claim I've just posted @BrianM.Hunt

@BrianM.Hunt what about restricting the question to the claims of Ian Stevenson? He seems to be the source of most myths

Transcript for

Discussion between Sklivvz and Articuno